On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:35:10 -0500 Sander Jansen <s.jansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:31:06 -0400 > > Jack Silver <jacksilver045@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> To exchange information I want to let know this list that I have filled a > >> feature request form to ask for a statically builded pacman. > >> > >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30993 > >> > >> Comments welcome in the bug manager. > >> > >> جاك الفضة > > > > Well, bugtracker is not a place for comments, it's for solutions. > > > > Anyway... statically compiling things is not a way of avoiding trouble, at > > least not in a self-sustained fashion. So, if you propose to have pacman in > > [core] statically compiled against all needed libraries, I would be against > > that as the package will be an unmaintainable mess. > > Why would it be a unmaintainable mess? Because it is _statically_ compiled so the whole binary has to be rebuilt even after a minor update of one of the libraries. This is assuming that you can actually make such binary with gcc... -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
